1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This appeal through leave of the Court arises out of the appellant's conviction for offence under section 228, P.P.C. It was recorded on the basis of his own plea of guilty recorded by an Additional Sessions Judge.
2. ' The allegation against the appellant who was Naib-Nazir in the Court of Civil Judge was that he came to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge without any official business. Having entered the Court room he started dragging out two applicants for bail who were present there in person. Such a conduct on the part of the appellant was treated as falling within the mischief of section 228, P.P.C. And accordingly the appellant was found guilty on his own plea for the same offence. He was awarded sentence of one month S.I. Plus fine of. Rs, 500 in lieu whereof to suffer further S.I. For one month.
3. Leave to appeal was granted to examine; whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge could, when he himself had taken cognizance of the offence and had not chosen to send the case to a Magistrate competent to try the same under section 482, Cr.P.C., have awarded a sentence beyond a fine) and that only of Rs,200 as provided under section 480, Cr.P.C.
4. ' Sections 480 to 487, Cr.P.C. Read as follows:-- 480.--(1) When any such offence as is described in section 175, section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day may, if it thinks fit, take cognizance of the offence and sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, and, in default of payment, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extent to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid.
5. 481.--(1) In every such case the Court shall record the facts constituting the offence, with the statement (if any) made by the offender, as well as the finding and sentence.
(2) If the offence is under section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code the record shall show the. Nature and stage of the judicial proceeding in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and the nature of the interruption or insult.
6. 482.--(1) If the Court in any case considers that a person accused of any of the offences referred to in section 480 and committed in its view or presence should be imprisoned otherwise than in default of payment of fine, or that a fine exceeding two hundred rupees should be imposed upon him, or such Court is for any reason of opinion that the case should not be disposed of under section 480, such Court, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused as hereinbefore provided, may forward the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same, and may require security to be given for the appearance of such accused person before such Magistrate, or if sufficient security is not given, shall forward such person in custody to such Magistrate.
(2) The Magistrate, to whom any case is forwarded under this section, shall proceed to hear the complaint against the accused person in manner hereinbefore provided.
483. When the (Provincial Government) so directs, any Registrar or any Sub-Registrar appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 shall be deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of sections 480 and 482.
484. When any Court has under section 480 (or section 482) adjudged an offender to punishment (or forwarded him to a Magistrate for trial) for refusing or omitting to do anything which he was lawfully required to do or for any intentional insult or interruption, the Court may, in its discretion, discharge the offender or remit the punishment on his submission to the order or requisition of such Court, or on apology being made to its satisfaction.
485. If any witness or person called to produce a document or thing before a Criminal Court refuses to answer such questions as are put to him or to produce any document or thing in his possession or power which the Court requires him to produce, and does not offer any reasonable excuse for such refusal, such Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, sentence him to simple imprisonment, or by warrant under the hand of the presiding Magistrate or Judge commit him to the custody of an officer of the Court for any term not exceeding seven days, unless in the meantime such person consents to be examined and to answer, or to produce the document or thing. In the event of his persisting in his refusal, he may be dealt with according to the provisions of section 480 or section 482, and, in the case of a High Court, 'shall be deemed guilty of a contempt.
7. 486.--(1) Any person sentenced by any Court under section 480 or section 485, may, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, appeal to the Court to which decrees or orders made in such Court are ordinarily appealable.
(2) The provisions of Chapter XXXI shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to appeals under this section, and the Appellate Court may alter or reverse the finding, or reverse the sentence appealed against.
(3) An appeal from such conviction by (a) Court of Small Causes shall lie to the Court of Session for the Sessions division within which such Court is situate.
(4) An appeal from such conviction by any officer as Registrar or Sub-Registrar appointed as aforesaid may, when such officer is also Judge of a Civil Court, be made to the Court to which it would, under the preceding portion of this section, be made if such conviction were a decree by such officer in his capacity as such Judge, and in other causes may be made to the District Judge.
8. "487.--(1) Except as provided in sections 476, 480 and 485, no Judge of a Criminal Court or Magistrate, other than a Judge of a High Court, shall try any person for any offence referred to in section 195, when such offence is committed before himself or in contempt of his authority, or is brought under his notice as such Judge or Magistrate in the course of a judicial proceeding."
9. No doubt as the learned counsel for the appellant argued if the learned trial Judge in this case proceeded under section 480, Cr.P.C. It did place a limitation on his power regarding the extent of punishment. Of course, after recording conviction he could not have imposed any sentence other than of Rs,200 only. In lieu whereof simple imprisonment which might have extended to one month could have been awarded. The sentence awarded in this case obviously goes beyond the one permissible under section 480, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the sentence impugned in this case could have been awarded by a learned Magistrate if the case, instead of having been taken congnizance of under section 480, Cr.P.C., would have been dealt with and transferred under section 482, Cr.P.C. To a Magistrate's Court. Prima facie, this argument is attractive but as these provisions fall under the Chapter heading "Proceedings in case of certain Offences affecting the Administration of Justice", various situations were visualised by the framers of the Code in enacting the various provisions contained in the said Chapter. If a Presiding Judge is of the view that the default/delinquency is of very casual nature he might also not take the same as more seriously than visualised under section 480, Cr.P.C. And there and then before rising of the Court, convict and award the minor punishment provided in section 480, Cr.P.C. Even though otherwise as in the present case [section 224 P.P.C. Entails maximum of 6 months' S.I. Or fine upto Rs,1,000 or both] the offence might be punishable with graver sentence.
10. ' The next provision i.e, section 482, Cr.P.C. Visualised slightly graver situation. Where the Presiding Judge might consider the limited sentence under section 480, Cr.P.C. As inappropriate and a graver sentence might be justified and also that he should not involve himself in a prolonged regular trial, as distinguish from the proceedings under section 480, Cr.P.C. He has the option to forward the case to a Magistrate.
11. ' Depending upon the nature of the delinquency of the person concerned the Presiding Judge has still another option of not forwarding the case to a Magistrate and thus abdicating his own authority to punish the delinquency, but at the same time he considers that the punishment limited under section 480, Cr.P.C. Would be too lenient in the facts and circumstances of the case. He has here the option to act under section 476, Cr.P.C. But here he will have to go through the entire process of a trial instead of simplified proceedings permissible under section 480, Cr.P.C. While proceeding under section 476, Cr.P.C. The Court would have more power vis-a-vis, the limit of punishment as compared to section 480, Cr.P.C. And section 482, Cr.P.C. As is apparent from its provisions reproduced below.
12. "476.--(1) When any offence referred to in section 195, subsection (1), clause (b) or clause (c), has been committed in or in relation to, a proceeding in any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, the Court may take cognizance of the offence and try the same in accordance with the. Procedure prescribed for summary trials in Chapter XXII.
(2) When in any case tried under subsection (1) the Court finds the offender guilty, it may, notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of section 262--
(a) pass any sentence .On the offender authorised by law for such offence, except a sentence of death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment exceeding five years, if such Court be a High Court, a Court of Session; a District Court or any Court exercising the power of a Court of Session or a District Court;
(b) sentence the offender to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or to pay a fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or both if such Court be a Court of a Magistrate of the first class, a Civil Court other than a High Court, a District Court or a Court exercising the powers of a District Court or a Revenue Court not inferior to Court of Collector;
(c) sentence the offender to simple imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to pay a fine not exceeding fifty rupees, or both, if such Court be a Criminal Court or a Revenue Court other than a Court referred to in clause (a) or clause (b).
(3) The powers conferred on Civil, Revenue and Criminal Courts under this section may be exercised in respect of any offence referred to in subsection (1) and alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in such Court by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of subsection (3) of section 119.
(4) Any person sentenced by any Court under this section may, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, appeal--
(a) in the case of sentence by the High Court, to the Supreme Court;
(b) In the case of a sentence by a Court of Session, or District Court, or a Court exercising the powers of a Court of Session or a District Court, to the High Court; and
(c) in any other case, to the Sessions Judge.
(5) The provisions of Chapter XXXI, shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to appeals under this section and the Appellate Court may alter the finding or reduce or enhance the sentence appealed against.
13. The limitations as are provided in section 2(a) 2(b) and .2(c) are relatable to the various grades of the Court. They are further subject to the punishment or sentence provided in the relevant punishing provision as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section 476, the offences relevant thereunder are only those which are mentioned in section 195(1), clause (b) or clause (c).
14. ' The offence under section 228, P.P.C. Involved in the present case is mentioned in section 195(1)(b).
15. Thus its cognizance could be taken by the Presiding Judge of the same Court under section 476, Cr.P.C.
16. ' The objection of the learned counsel for the appellant that a condition in clause (1)(b) of section 185, is that the trial of the offences mentioned therein cannot take place except as provided therein; namely, "on complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate". The argument is obviously untenable. This condition cannot be relatable to the cognizance under section 476, Cr.P.C. Wherein the reference to section 195, Cr.P.C. Is only to the extent of lifting up the specification of the offences therein and does not extend to the conditions laid therein. This view is supported by the fact that the cognizance under section 476, Cr.P.C. Is by the same Court or in relation to the proceedings wherein the offence has been committed. The condition relating to submission of a complaint in sectin 195, Cr.P.C. Could not have been visualised in the manner suggested by the learned counsel; namely, that the same Court should make a complaint of the offence to itself under section 476, Cr.P.C. Read with section 195, Cr.P.C. This was never intended and that is why the reference under section 476 of section 195, Cr.P.C. Is in the simple language as follows:-- "When any offence referred to in section 195, subsection (1), clause (b) or clause (c), has been committed in or in relation to, a proceeding in any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, the Court may take cognizance of the offence and try the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summary trials in Chapter XXII."
17. ' The argument, accordingly has no force.
18. ' Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the learned trial Judge in this case was not conscious of his having proceeded under section 476, Cr.P.C. And thus conditions of a summary trial in Chapter XXII, were not satisfied. We do not agree with him. The perusal of the proceedings and comparison with the provisions of Chapter XXII, with particular reference to the plea of guilty made by the appellant before the learned trial Judge makes it amply clear that the proceedings were under section 476 read with the provisions contained in Chapter XXII. Thus this argument also has no force.
19. It may be mentioned here that as is the distinction between sections 480 and 482, Cr.P.C. Vis-a-vis the various shades of criminality from case to case, same or similar situation, has been visualised with regard to the cases which could be taken cognizance of under section 476, Cr.P.C. That is why section 476-A was added (both sections 476 and 476-A, Cr.P.C. Were enacted/re-enacted in 1972).
20. It reads as follows:- "476A.--(1) If the Court in any case considers that the persqn accused of any of the offences referred to in section 476, subsection (1), and committed in, or in relation to, any proceedings before it, should not be tried under that section, such Court may, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused person, as hereinbefore provided, forward the case to a Court having jurisdiction to try the case, and may require security to be given for the appearance of such accused person before such Court, or, if sufficient security is not given, shall forward such person in custody to such Court.
(2) The Court of which a case is forwarded under this section shall proceed to hear the complaint against the accused person in the manner hereinbefore provided."
21. It needs to be mentioned that the law was rationalized in 1972 by certain improvements and omissions of sections 476-B, 477, 478 and 479, Cr.P.C. Section 476-A deals with the forwarding of case for trial by Courts having jurisdiction to take cognizance under section 476, Cr.P.C. On the finding that the case should not be tried under that section for reasons relatable to the facts and circumstances. In that situation after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused person the case can be forwarded to another Court having jurisdiction to try the same. Various reasons which could be visualized both for section 476-A as well as section 482 may vary from case to case. Some comment has already been made in this behalf in the foregoing discussion.
22. ' Although in the light of the foregoing discussion there is nothing left in this case except to dismiss the appeal and uphold the conviction and sentence but we have discovered a salutary provision contained in section 484, Cr.P.C. which acts as a bridge between a person in attendance in a Court of law who had erred in such a manner so as to incur the liability of punishment either forthwith or later by the same Court and the Presiding Judge/Officer. Section 484, Cr.P.C. Provides that when any Court has under section 480 Cr.P.C. Or section 482, Cr.P.C. Adjudged an offender to punishment or forwarded to a Magistrate for trial, for refusing or omitting to do anything which he was lawfully required to do or for any intentional insult or interruption; the Court may, in its discretion, discharge the offender or remit the punishment on his submission to the order or requisition of such Court, or on apology being made to its satisfaction. This concession made by the law is based on the well- known principles underlying the offence of Contempt of Court.
23. Although in the present case the cognizance, as held was not taken under section 480 nor the provisions of section 482, Cr.P.C. Are attracted, yet the aforementioned principle could have been applied by the learned trial Judge.
24. There is no statutory bar or other impediment in this behalf. It is admitted by both the sides that the appellant had without any loss of time regretted and apologised for his folly before the learned Judge and that too before the announcement of verdict of conviction and sentence. Together with this can also be noted his honourable conduct of having admitted what was factually true and he did not try to unnecessarily create any confusion either by preliminary proceedings or by contesting what obviously was uncontestable.
25. ' Therefore, if this case is not treated as one qualified for pardon there will be difficulty in finding cases other than this one for the said concession. When questioned; whether, the appellant can be allowed this concession on the basis of what he had promptly said and done before the Trial Court; namely, the plea of guilty and apology, the learned Assistant Advocate-General stated that on principle he would not contest this position, but technically it might not be possible.
26. ' We do not agree with him. What the learned trial Judge could do in this case and an appellate Court can also do and in addition vis-a-vis the Supreme Court, there are no limitation of any technicality in this behalf. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The apology of the appellant is accepted and in the discretion of the Court he is discharged; and the sentence awarded to him is remitted.